Rivard v. Morier and Boily, (1985) 64 N.R. 46 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 64 N.R. 46 (SCC);34 ACWS (2d) 111;17 Admin LR 230;23 DLR (4th) 1;[1985] 2 SCR 716;64 NR 46;[1985] SCJ No 81 (QL);JE 86-64;1985 CanLII 26 (SCC)

Rivard v. Morier (1985), 64 N.R. 46 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Gilbert Morier and Raymond Boily (appellant) v. Gilles Rivard (respondent) and Commission de Police du Quebec, Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, Quebec Official Publisher, Chief Librarian of the Bibliotheque Nationale du Quebec (mis en cause)

(No. 17896)

Indexed As: Rivard v. Morier and Boily

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

December 19, 1985.

Summary:

The Quebec Police Commission filed a report on crime in certain Quebec business circles in which the conduct of a lawyer was censured. The lawyer brought an action in nullity asking that the report be declared null and void and another action against members of the Commission and the Commission itself for exemplary damages under s. 49 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, alleging that they breached the duty in s. 34.3 of the Quebec Police Act that no person's conduct be censured without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Commissioners moved to dismiss on the ground that they were immune from suit under s. 16 of the Public Inquiry Commissions Act and s. 22 of the Police Act, which together gave the Commissioners the immunity of a Superior Court judge.

The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion. The lawyer appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1983] C.A. 334; [1983] R.D.J. 514, allowed the appeal. The Commissioners appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the Commissioners were immune from suit for acts done in the execution of their duty, which included the holding of an inquiry and the submitting of a report.

La Forest, J., dissenting, with Wilson, J., concurring, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction and their immunity by censuring the lawyer without notice and opportunity to be heard contrary to s. 34.3 of the Police Act.

Administrative Law - Topic 7910

Public inquiries - Immunity - The Quebec Police Commission filed a report on crime in certain business circles in which the conduct of a lawyer was censured - Section 34.3 of the Police Act forbad the censuring of a person without notice and an opportunity to be heard - Section 16 of the Public Inquiry Commissions Act and s. 22 of the Police Act together gave the Commissioners the immunity of a Superior Court judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commissioners were immune from a suit for damages by the lawyer for acts done in the execution of their duty, which included the holding of an inquiry and the submitting of a report.

Courts - Topic 230

Judges - Privileges - Official acts - Privilege from civil liability - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature and extent of the immunity of judges respecting acts done in the execution of their duty - See paragraphs 87 to 112.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose cause of action - The Quebec Police Commission filed a report on crime in certain Quebec business circles in which the conduct of a lawyer was censured - The lawyer brought an action against the Commissioners for damages - The Commissioners moved to dismiss the action on the ground that they were immune - The Supreme Court of Canada in allowing the motion held that the motion to dismiss was the appropriate procedure to stop an action which cannot succeed in law - See paragraphs 113 to 118.

Cases Noticed:

McGillivray v. Kimber et al. (1916), 52 S.C.R. 146, dist. [para. 21].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, dist. [para. 21].

Chartier v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; 27 N.R. 1, dist. [para. 21].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. v. Quebec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541, dist. [para. 26].

O'Connor v. Waldron, [1935] A.C. 76, dist. [para. 26].

Trapp v. Mackie, [1979] 1 All E.R. 489, dist. [para. 33].

McC v. Mullan, [1984] 3 All E.R. 908, consd. [paras. 71, 100, 134].

Floyd v. Barker (1607), 12 Co. Rep. 23, consd. [para. 88].

Garnett v. Ferrand and Another (1826-27), 6 B. & C. 611, consd. [para. 89].

Fray v. Blackburn (1863), 3 B. & S. 576, consd. [para. 90].

Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society v. Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q.B. 431, consd. [para. 91].

Sirros v. Moore, [1975] 1 Q.B. 118, appld. [para. 97].

Schwartz v. Smith (1964), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 316 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Ringrose v. Stevenson et al. (1982), 35 A.R. 62, refd to. [para. 117].

Unterreiner v. Wilson et al. (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 197, refd to. [para. 117].

Stark v. Auerbach et al. (1980), 98 D.L.R.(3d) 583 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Bengle v. l'hon. juge Weir (1929), 67 C.S. 289 (Que.), refd to. [para. 117].

Gabriel v. Langlois, [1973] C.S. 659 (Que.), refd to. [para. 117].

Foran v. Tatangello et al. (1977), 14 O.R.(2d) 91, refd to. [para. 117].

Haggard v. Pelicier Freres, [1892] A.C. 61 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Scott v. Stansfield (1868), 3 L.R. Ex. 220, refd to. [para. 117].

Ontario Crime Commission, Ex parte Feeley and McDermott, Re, [1962] O.R. 872 (C.A.), consd. [para. 132].

Case of the Marshalsea (1612), 10 Co. Rep. 68b; 77 E.R. 1027 (K.B.), consd. [para. 135].

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147 (H.L.), consd. [para. 136].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 49 [paras. 4, 124].

Police Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-13, sect. 20 [paras. 44, 121]; sect. 22 [paras. 9, 45, 125]; sect. 34.3 [paras. 5, 123]; sect. 35 [paras. 46, 122].

Public Inquiry Commissions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-37, sect. 1 [para. 52]; sect. 2 [para. 51]; sect. 6 [para. 52]; sect. 7 [paras. 27, 47]; sect. 16 [paras. 10, 47, 125, 129].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brun, H., and Tremblay, G., Droit constitutionnel (1982), p. 514 [para. 93].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 1, p. 197, paras. 206, 210 [para. 92].

Counsel:

Georges Emery, Q.C., for the appellant Boily;

Michel Decary, for the appellant Morier;

Pierre Lemieux and Andre Gaudreau, for the mis en cause the Attorney General of Quebec;

Guy Pepin, Q.C., and Isabelle Gedffrey, for the respondent Rivard.

This case was heard on May 21, 1985, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 19, 1985, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Chouinard, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 119;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 120 to 141.

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer and Le Dain, JJ., concurred with Chouinard, J.

Wilson, J., concurred with La Forest, J.